Tag Archives: Obama

Explaining ‘Lives Touched’ to the Mainstream Media

In late July, a Government Accountability Office report circulated which analyzed stimulus funding being spent by the Department of Energy.  The main gist of that report involved the cost of each job being generated by the stimulus bill – a staggering $194,000.  Tucked away in that report was a phrase that was new to most of us, a way to calculate jobs through a term called ‘lives touched’. Last week it was confirmed that some departments being funded by the stimulus are indeed using the metric ‘lives touched’ – a regression from the absurd ‘jobs saved or created’, which was already a step down from the incalculable ‘jobs created’. A spokesperson from the CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Company explains: “Lives Touched” is a figure that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) uses to track the amount of people who have been positively affected by the Recovery Act funds.  This total would include people who have been provided full time employment (i.e. saved and created jobs) through the Recovery Act and people who at some point have supported a project funded by the Recovery Act. Essentially, the Obama administration had figured out another way to inflate job numbers to better fit their claims of success.  And yet, the media has remained largely silent on this matter.  Even as Vice-President Biden released a report on the Recovery Act yesterday, with a specific focus on the Department of Energy and job creation. Below is an outline of how the administration and the DOE are collaborating to inflate their numbers by measuring the number of ‘lives touched’ by the stimulus bill. In their remarks , Vice-President Biden and DOE Secretary Chu reference job creation several times (emphasis mine throughout). Biden:   “… the Recovery Act’s $100 billion investment in innovation is not only transforming the economy and creating new jobs … Chu:  “…these breakthroughs are helping create tens of thousands of new jobs …” Biden:  “We’re planting the seeds of innovation, but private companies and the nation’s top researchers are helping them grow, launching entire new industries, transforming our economy and creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs in the process.” The Biden report being cited, The Recovery Act: Transforming the American Economy Through Innovation , references several companies that have generated jobs through the Recovery Act.  Each footnote in the report explains that the job estimates are from a company’s own reports, which is the norm for reporting job results through the recovery website. Referring back to the CH2M company, we know that their reports include a directive to use numbers which estimate ‘lives touched’ by the stimulus.  We not only know this from the spokesperson’s explanation of the metric above, but by the reporting instructions provided to subcontractors which defines the phrase as “(the) total number of workers who have directly charged 1 or more hours of work time to a … contract.” One hour of work and your life has been touched.  Additionally, the instructions state that, “The lives touched headcount will remain the same or increase over time as new workers become involved with ARRA contracts.  The total headcount will never decrease.” In other words, a temporary, part-time, or seasonal worker can come into a project, work no more than one hour on said project, and that person will continue to appear in the headcount with each report.  They will not be removed upon their departure from the project. The DOE themselves have also confirmed this metric.  Spokesman Cameron Hardy explains: “Lives touched” represents the cumulative number of full-time, part-time, and temporary workers that have been employed with EM Recovery Act funds at some point since the start of the program in April 2009.  As of June 30, 2010, the lives touched number is more than 24,000 and we have 10,500 full-time Recovery Act workers, working across the DOE Complex. The metric, according to the DOE, was developed by the Office of Environmental Management “to capture all workers that have been employed under the Recovery Act.”  But why the need to capture all workers, when some may have only worked a mere hour on a project, or who have only supported a project in some manner?  Simply put, to inflate the numbers. The GAO report claims that calculations from the DOE “ranged from about 5,700 jobs to 20,200, depending on the methodology used.”   What is the harm in providing an overall headcount, as long as it remains separate from official job reports?  Well, it turns out that they can’t seem to keep things separate. When these numbers are presented publicly and then parroted through the mainstream media who have clearly not done their homework, as was the case with yesterday’s Biden report, the result is deceit.  The administration provided job estimates while failing to provide any context or explanation as to how the numbers were derived. An example of this can be seen in an April News Flash provided by the Office of Environmental Management.  The chart on the right tallies up the total headcount or ‘lives touched’ as 20,249.  A statement on the left claims that “EM Recovery Act funding has employed over 20,000 workers on stimulus projects in 12 states.”  Which is it, employed or touched? A contract award summary for the National Opinion Research Center speaks volumes of the disparity.  In their ‘description of jobs created’ section, they explain how the numbers are derived: “…the total headcount, (the number of ‘lives touched’ or, the number of people who have labor hours funded by stimulus funds, not distinguishing between part-time and full-time, or the length of the job, as of June 30th is a combined total of 480 staff members hired/retained as of the end of the quarter.” The summary then goes on to explain that only 2 of the 480 jobs being discussed were newly created positions.  Two jobs, but a grand total of 480 are being reported.  That’s a markup up of 24,000%. It would be funny, if it weren’t so sad. It’s all part of the overall deception, however.  The White House continues to throw out random numbers in their quest to convince the public that their behemoth stimulus bill is saving jobs at a massive rate.  Whether it is created, saved, funded, or touched, the Obama administration’s smoke and mirrors tactics continue.  Perhaps that will change.  Perhaps the American people will see right through these lies. Perhaps the polls in November will clearly demonstrate how many lives are being touched by the stimulus bill – in a negative way. Crossposted at The Mental Recession

Read the original:
Explaining ‘Lives Touched’ to the Mainstream Media

July New Home Sales: Wire Reports Dour, But Still Understated; Reuters-Quoted Economist Blames Govt.

July’s bad news in new home sales is even worse than it first appears. The seasonally adjusted annual rate of 276,000 units is bad enough. That is an all-time low since records have been kept and 12% lower than June’s annual rate. It’s also lower than what analysts predicted by about the same percentage. The lazy business press is running with those figures. But, as has been the case so many other times, it takes a trip to the raw (i.e., not seasonally adjusted) data, this time at the Census Bureau ( large PDF ), to fully comprehend the extent of the new-home market’s collapse during this big, fat failed “Recovery Summer.” The raw data shows that 25,000 new homes were sold in the U.S. in July. That’s not a typo, and it really is the figure for the entire country. Worse, that figure, the lowest July since records have been kept, is down by over one-third from July of last year, when the economy supposedly bottomed out, and by 42% from July 2008. I don’t think you’ll see those facts reported today. Here is a graphic cap of a 10:07 a.m. report at Reuters carried at CNBC.com . It contains a jaw-dropper of a quote from an economist (red box is obviously mine): You have to wonder how widely reported Mr. Porcelli’s in-your-face to the government will be, or if it will even survive future Reuters revisions. As would be expected, no similar quote is present at the Associated Press, which used its time-honored business-reporting strategy of downplaying the awful news inside of two larger stories, one about the stock market’s reaction and the other about the not as bad news about durable goods orders, instead of giving it the separate treatment it deserves. Here are a few paragraphs from the two reports. To their credit, the authors of the first cited the lowest-on-record nature of the past three months’ results, but without indicating the degree of the cratering: (Daniel Wagner and Alan Zibel, “Recovery in danger as firms, homebuyers cut back,” as of 12:09 p.m. ) The economic recovery appears to be stalling as companies cut back last month on their investments in equipment and machines and Americans bought new homes at the weakest pace in decades. … Separately, Commerce said new home sales fell 12.4 percent in July from a month earlier to a seasonally adjusted annual sales pace of 276,600. That was the slowest pace on records dating back to 1963. Collectively, the past three months have been the worst on record for new home sales. … The two reports are likely to stoke fears that the economy is on the verge of slipping back into a recession. They follow Tuesday’s report that showed sales of previously owned homes fell last month to the lowest level in decades. Unemployment remains near double digits and job growth in the private sector is slowing. … Housing has never fully recovered from the recession. Builders have been forced to compete with foreclosed properties offered at significantly lower prices. (Stephen Bernard, “More bad news on home sales sends stocks lower,” as of 12:04 p.m. ) The Dow Jones industrial average fell about 16 points in midday trading Wednesday following news that sales of new homes fell last month to the lowest level on record. It was the latest indication that home sales are stagnating after the expiration of a homebuyer tax credit this spring. … New home sales fell 12.4 percent in July to an annual rate of 276,600, the Commerce Department reported. That was the slowest pace on records dating back to 1963 and worse than the pace forecast by economists polled by Thomson Reuters. A day earlier, the National Association of Realtors said sales of existing homes, a far greater proportion of the housing market, fell to a 15-year low in July. … Despite the ultra-low borrowing rates, home sales have been weak since a home buyer tax credit expired at the end of April. High unemployment has kept people from buying homes, and banks still reeling from the crisis in the mortgage-backed securities market have been cautious in making new loans. Note how the last excerpted sentence dodges Porcelli’s contention at Reuters that “There is also little demand for lending.” Banks are being cautious, but there’s plenty of mortgage money out there for people who want to borrow (listen to the constant barrage of lender radio ads if you don’t believe it). There’s just little interest in doing so. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

See the original post here:
July New Home Sales: Wire Reports Dour, But Still Understated; Reuters-Quoted Economist Blames Govt.

CBS, NBC Mourn Loss of Funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research

A  recent court ruling  found that federal funding for embryonic stem cell research violates laws prohibiting the government from using taxpayer money for research that destroys an embryo. The ruling has sent the evening network news broadcasts reeling. While ABC’s “World News” briefly reported on the ruling Aug. 23, the NBC “Nightly News” and CBS “Evening News” have both aired reports suggesting that the ruling would end life-saving research – in spite of the fact the embryonic research can continue if privately funded, and federal funding of adult stem cell research is unaffected. NBC’s Robert Bazell reported Aug. 24 that the ruling “left a lot of researchers fairly stunned.” CBS’s Wyatt Andrews called the ruling “a shock.” But was it really? Neither report mentioned that federal funding for embryonic stem cell research was  severely restricted  under the Bush administration, and was only widened by the Obama administration  in July 2009 . Both reports also suggested that the ruling would end life-saving research. Bazell featured Dr. Chuck Murray, who is “in the delicate business of rebuilding severely damaged hearts and has tried adult and embryonic stem cells in his efforts.” The segment featured heart muscle built from embryonic stem cells, and Bazell warned that “because of yesterday’s court ruling, this research might have to stop by the end of the year.” But he didn’t mention that the rest of Dr. Murray’s research – on adult stem cells – is unaffected by the ruling. On CBS, Andrews warned the ruling “could halt a half-million dollar research project both the University of Maryland and Johns Hopkins have been using to study childhood leukemia” and another studying Down syndrome. But later in the report he noted that the National Institutes of Health has said that “more than 200 existing stem cell experiments could continue for now but may not be renewed.” Andrews did note adult stem cell research is unaffected by the ruling. While both reports suggested the ruling would mean the end of promising research, they both alluded to the fact that the research will, in fact, continue – just not with taxpayer money. Private funding of embryonic stem cell research is not affected by the ruling. Both reports also included brief input from pro-life advocates and medical ethicists who praised the decision. Like this article? Sign up for “Culture Links,” CMI’s weekly e-mail newsletter, by   clicking  here.

Read more:
CBS, NBC Mourn Loss of Funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Amidst Obama’s Falling Poll Numbers, MSNBC Tries to Suggest He Could Rebound Like Reagan

During the 3 p.m. MSNBC news hour Monday, anchor Chris Jansing asked the question and hosted an expert who supplied the seemingly desired answer. The question: Could President Obama make a mid-term comeback similar to President Reagan in 1982? The answer: Absolutely. The two discussed the similarities of the situations faced by the presidents, and seemed to conclude that if the economy turns around, President Obama would almost certainly be re-elected. It is a big if, but the short segment seemed quite focused on what would happen after the economy turns around. The two didn’t bother to discuss what would happen if the economy continues to be stagnant, or takes a turn for the worse. “Well you have a President facing a deep recession, high unemployment, dropping poll numbers, and a potentially game-changing midterm election. That was Ronald Reagan’s first two years in office. Then, two years later, he won re-election in a landslide,” stated MSNBC anchor Chris Jansing. “Could President Obama make the same comeback?” Guest Allan Lichtman, presidential historian at American University, answered in the affirmative.  “Absolutely,” he responded. “They are kind of mirror images of each other.” After Lichtman explained how the two Presidents’ situations are quite similar, Jansing asked her follow-up question. “If the economy starts to turn around in the next year to 18 months…is it likely to follow that Barack Obama will have a much easier time with re-election?” “It will follow like night to day,” Lichtman predictably answered. “And of course this all presumes the Democrats don’t commit internal suicide by challenging [Obama] in the primaries.” A full transcript of the segment, which aired on August 23 at 3:40 p.m. EDT, is as follows: KRIS JANSING: Well you have a President facing a deep recession, high unemployment, dropping poll numbers, and a potentially game-changing midterm election. That was Ronald Reagan’s first two years in office. Then, two years later, he won re-election in a landslide. Could President Obama make the same comeback? And with 30 years between them, is it realistic to compare the fate of these two very different presidents? Allan Lichtman is a political analyst and Presidential historian at American University. And we didn’t just come up with this. There are plenty of people who have made this comparison, and especially in recent months, when the poll numbers for President Obama have been dropping so precipitously. Are there fair comparisons to be made with Ronald Reagan? ALLAN LICHTMAN: Absolutely. They are kind of mirror images of each other. Each president won a pretty handy victory coming in against the grain of his times. Ronald Reagan was a conservative elected at the end of a liberal-to-moderate era. Barack Obama was a liberal, elected at the end of a conservative-to-moderate era. Both presidents passed major initiatives. Ronald Reagan with his big tax cuts. Barack Obama with his stimulus plan and his health care plan. Neither one got very much credit for that during their first two years. They both faced biting recessions, they both saw their poll numbers plummet into the low forties, remarkably identical poll numbers. And in both cases, the ideological wings of their parties were very unhappy. Conservatives were really unhappy with Ronald Reagan because he wasn’t cutting the budget, and he wasn’t pushing social issues like abortion, and we know the liberals are very unhappy with Barack Obama because of his escalation of the war in Afghanistan, and his failure to adopt a more liberal type of health care, and to push harder on global warming. So let me count the ways they are similar, as the poet would say. JANSING: If the economy starts to turn around in the next year to 18 months, if people start to get jobs again, if people start to feel more confident in their jobs, start buying houses and spending money again, is it likely to follow that Barack Obama will have a much easier time with re-election? LICHTMAN: It will follow almost like night to day that Barack Obama will win re-election if the economy picks up. Ronald Reagan faced a tough midterm, he lost a couple of dozen house seats, but the economy began to pick up in 1983, boomed in 1984, and he won one of the biggest landslide re-elections in the history of the United States. The same thing could happen to Barack Obama, although it’s unlikely the economy will boom the same way it did for Ronald Reagan. So he may not be looking towards a landslide, but if the economy significantly improves, especially as we head into the election year, then I think Barack Obama’s re-election is almost certain, particularly given the confusion within the opposition, and the lack of a clear, strong, Republican opponent. And of course this all presumes the Democrats don’t commit internal suicide by challenging him in the primaries. JANSING: Ah, well there’s always that. LICHTMAN: Always that. The Democrats can always snatch defeat from victory.

Originally posted here:
Amidst Obama’s Falling Poll Numbers, MSNBC Tries to Suggest He Could Rebound Like Reagan

ABC Singles Out ‘Hard-line, Tea Party Conservative,’ Ignores Antics of Florida Democratic Candidate

Good Morning America’s Jon Karl on Tuesday characterized a Republican senatorial candidate in Alaska as a “hard-line, Tea Party conservative” and someone who ” has also been known to attract assault weapon-baring weapon supporters at his political rallies .” He added, “In a recent interview on ABC’s Top Line, [candidate Joe Miller] suggested that unemployment benefits are unconstitutional.” [MP3 audio here .] Karl played a clip of Miller asserting, “The unemployment compensation benefits have got to- first of all, is not constitutionally authorized. I think that’s the first thing that has to be looked at. So, I do not favor their extension.” Yet, Karl and GMA ignored one of the day’s other big primaries, involving Democratic senatorial candidate Jeff Greene. The Florida hopeful has endured gaffes revolving around drugs, strippers and Mike Tyson. But, Karl made no mention of this. And while Miller was at least making a constitutional argument, wouldn’t the colorful, controversial statements by Greene also warrant a mention? Instead, Karl pivoted to the GOP’s primary in Arizona and used more ideological labeling: “Senator John McCain up against another Republican, who has carved a position even further to the right.” A transcript of the August 24 segment, which aired at 7:09am EDT, follows: DAVID MUIR: We’re going to turn to politics this morning. And three states are holding primaries today. And the stakes are high for former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. She’s not on the ticket. But she is throwing her support behind candidates in the race. And the big question this morning, does that endorsement actually help? Senior congressional correspondent Jonathan Karl now in Washington. John, good morning. JONATHAN KARL: Good morning, David. And today, we’ll see how much political clout Sarah Palin has in her own state. She has taken sides in the Republican Senate primary in Alaska, launching a tough attack against her state’s Republican incumbent senator. It’s momma grizzly versus momma grizzly. Sarah Palin is trying to oust Alaska’s Republican Senator Lisa Murkowsi. Palin has endorsed Murkowski opponent Joe Miller, suggesting that unlike Murkowski, he’s tough enough to take on the President. SARAH PALIN: He’s got the backbone to take on Obama’s radical agenda. By contrast, Lisa Murkowski has voted with the Democrats more than any Republican up for re-election this year. KARL: The race is a test of Palin’s clout in her own backyard. Palin scored some impressive victories earlier this year in the lower 48. Providing critical endorsements to Nikki Haley for governor in South Carolina, and Carly Fiorina for Senate in California. But, lately, Palin’s been on a losing streak. Over the last five weeks, Palin-endorsed candidates have lost in Georgia, Tennessee, Kansas, Colorado and Washington State. Palin’s candidate in Alaska is a hard-line, Tea Party conservative . In a recent interview on ABC’s Top Line, he suggested that unemployment benefits are unconstitutional. JOE MILLER: The unemployment compensation benefits have got to- first of all, is not constitutionally authorized. I think that’s the first thing that has to be looked at. So, I do not favor their extension. KARL: Miller has also been known to attract assault weapon-baring weapon supporters at his political rallies. MUIR: And, Jon, while we’ve been following that race in Alaska, I know you going to be following what’s going on in Arizona, too. Senator John McCain up against another Republican, who has carved a position even further to the right. KARL: That’s right. And this has been a tough challenge FOR john McCain against J.D. Hayworth, a former Republican congressman. McCain has spent a staggering $21 million to fend off this Hayworth challenge. But, also important to point out, David, McCain is yet another Sarah Palin-endorsed candidate. MUIR: $21 Million. More than he spent in any of his Senate campaigns. But, I want to ask you about the stem cell judgment from the federal judge, too, while we have you. It’s going to be the big issue in Washington today. Blocking President Obama’s executive order last year that had expanded embryonic stem cell research. What does that mean for labs this morning? And what was behind the decision. KARL: Well, this is a major decision. Scientists are scrambling to figure out what the implications are. But, it effectively puts an end, at least temporarily, to all federally-funded embryonic stem cell research. It is a temporary injunction, David. The judge said he believes as a lawsuit challenging the Obama policy goes forward, that all federal funding of research must stop because he believes there’s a good chance that the policy will be overturned by the court.

See original here:
ABC Singles Out ‘Hard-line, Tea Party Conservative,’ Ignores Antics of Florida Democratic Candidate

Ratigan: ‘Default Position’ In USA Is To Incarcerate Black Men

Dylan Ratigan’s “Daily Rant” segment was a treasure trove of controversial statements today.  You be the judge of which statement rates higher on the controversy-meter: Ratigan’s claim that the “default position” in the USA is to incarcerate black men rather than educate them; or Blogger Keli Goff’s suggestion that to end the cycle of poverty among African-Americans, and to avoid burdening taxpayers, kids should be taught in school that not everyone should have children. Ratigan’s rather-imprison-than-educate African-Americans accusation is refuted by the facts, starting with the fact that the school district that spends more per pupil than any other in the USA is . . . that of the federally-funded District of Columbia, whose students are predominantly African-American. As for the suggestion from Keli Goff [a youthful veteran of various Dem political campaigns], can you imagine the outrage and the accusations of eugenics if a conservative blogger, particularly one of pallor, proposed that kids be taught not to have children as a solution, among other things, for reducing the burden of African-Americans on taxpayers? Goff was responding to a Bob Herbert column noting the low high-school graduation rate among African-American males. KELI GOFF: . . . One high-school dropout ends up costing taxpayers more than $200,000 over his lifetime.  And yet African-Americans and religious black Americans in particular, still have a tough time tackling the issues of family planning and birth control . . . So what’s the solution? Well, I think it’s simple. I think we should start by putting the “plan” back in “family planning.” No, I’m not advocating that we start throwing condoms at five-year olds. I’m actually suggesting something much more revolutionary.  For starters, what if in childhood health classes we taught the idea that just as every person isn’t meant to grow up to become an astronaut, not every person is meant to grow up to become a parent? . . . DYLAN RATIGAN: How much of [the cycle of poverty] in your opinion is family-planning driven, how much of that is a function of systematic racism in our country and laws that are enforced to basically pick-up, harvest and incarcerate young black men , particularly in New York with the Rockefeller laws, and how much of it is a complete abandonment of education as a value system period in this country unless you’re rich? GOFF: Well first of all you can’t discount any of those issues, and a lot of them are intertwined, but we do have systematic racism in this country, we have a history in this country that has helped handicap — RATIGAN: Particularly for incarcerating black men! GOFF: Right, which has helped handicap our community. RATIGAN: Because in my opinion, has been a default position to incarcerate black men as opposed to educate and integrate black men into our economy!

Read the original here:
Ratigan: ‘Default Position’ In USA Is To Incarcerate Black Men

Just What We Needed Dept: More Useless Kitchen Accessories and NSFW Yet

“Don’t be someone who needs help carrying a banana. That’s not who you are” You don’t need a lot of stuff to be a good cook; Mark Bittman says “”A stove, a sink, a refrigerator, some pots and pans, a knife and some serving spoons,” I answered. “All else is optional.” But what amazing options there are, those single purpose kitchen gadgets that take up so much space. Choosy Beggars

Original post:
Just What We Needed Dept: More Useless Kitchen Accessories and NSFW Yet

Does Obama Really Support Sustainable Agriculture?

Image credit: The WHO Farm When Michelle Obama first announced her White House garden , locavores everywhere rejoiced. Here was a highly symbolic, yet practical, indication of where the administration stood on sustainable agriculture. Yet while the First Lady has since enlarged the White House garden , and even

Read the original post:
Does Obama Really Support Sustainable Agriculture?

Bob Schieffer Blames Internet For Americans Believing Obama Is Muslim

Bob Schieffer on Sunday blamed the internet for the growing number of Americans that think Barack Obama is a Muslim. Namelessly referring to last week’s Pew Research Center poll finding that eighteen percent now believe this, the “Face the Nation” host concluded Sunday’s program saying that “in the internet age, ignorance travels as rapidly as great ideas.” He continued, “Now, not only great minds can find one another and compare notes, so too can the nuts and the perverts and those who are simply looking to validate their prejudices.” And continued, “So despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary, a new poll tells us a growing number of Americans, most of them on the right, believe Barack Obama is a Muslim. No doubt, due in part to the fact that stories to that effect have gone viral on the internet” (video follows with transcript and commentary):  BOB SCHIEFFER, HOST: Finally, today on another subject. The greatest advances in the store of human knowledge have always taken place when great minds found themselves in the same place at the same time, as when the Greeks gathered on the hillsides of Athens, when the political geniuses who founded this country came together. The great promise of the internet was that for the first time great minds no longer had to be in close proximity. But what we have also learned now is that in the internet age, ignorance travels as rapidly as great ideas. Now, not only great minds can find one another and compare notes, so too can the nuts and the perverts and those who are simply looking to validate their prejudices. So despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary, a new poll tells us a growing number of Americans, most of them on the right, believe Barack Obama is a Muslim. No doubt, due in part to the fact that stories to that effect have gone viral on the internet.   Disagreeing with our leaders is our right. And in truth, part of the fun of being an American. But to suggest the President is a Muslim is absurd. No matter how fervently some who dislike him may wish it so.   The purpose here, though, is not to argue politics but just to underscore how this illustrates the downside of the internet, the only news delivery system we’ve ever had that has no editor. We must always remember that that what we read there may not always be true. Indeed. Ironically, we must also remember that what we see on television may not always be true either. After all, when Schieffer said “a new poll tells us a growing number of Americans, most of them on the right , believe Barack Obama is a Muslim,” this was a nice little sleight of hand to disguise the truth. Here’s what the Pew poll really said : The view that Obama is a Muslim is more widespread among his political opponents than among his backers. Roughly a third of conservative Republicans (34%) say Obama is a Muslim, as do 30% of those who disapprove of Obama’s job performance. But even among many of his supporters and allies, less than half now say Obama is a Christian. Among Democrats, for instance, 46% say Obama is a Christian, down from 55% in March 2009. The belief that Obama is a Muslim has increased most sharply among Republicans (up 14 points since 2009), especially conservative Republicans (up 16 points). But the number of independents who say Obama is a Muslim has also increased significantly (up eight points). There has been little change in the number of Democrats who say Obama is a Muslim, but fewer Democrats today say he is a Christian (down nine points since 2009). As such, what Schieffer said about “most of them on the right” may have been accurate, but it certainly didn’t properly relay the poll’s findings. Maybe more importantly, the Pew survey didn’t ask participants where they get their news from. This means that Schieffer’s accusation that the opinions expressed by respondents he disagrees with must certainly come from the internet is only a speculation without any basis in fact. It appears despite his suggestion to the contrary, ignorance travels pretty quickly on television as well.  

More:
Bob Schieffer Blames Internet For Americans Believing Obama Is Muslim

Gloria Borger Bashes Obama’s Teleprompter

Gloria Borger this weekend ridiculed Barack Obama’s dependence on his trusted teleprompter. During the opening segment of the syndicated “Chris Matthews Show,” the host was comparing the current White House resident to the late John F. Kennedy. After Matthews showed video clips of JFK and Richard Nixon during the 1960 presidential campaign, guest Dan Rather remarked, “I noticed in the acceptance speeches neither one of them used a teleprompter. You can’t imagine any candidate today going without a teleprompter for an acceptance speech.” Borger marvelously quipped, “Particularly Obama” (video follows with transcript and commentary):  DAN RATHER, HDNET: Well, I was thinking. Take ourselves back to 1960. We hadn’t had our first television campaign. We were about to have Kennedy versus Nixon. I noticed in the acceptance speeches neither one of them used a teleprompter. You can’t imagine any candidate today going without a teleprompter for an acceptance speech. GLORIA BORGER, CNN: Particularly Obama! Nice, Gloria. Makes you wonder how many others in the Obama-loving media feel uncomfortable with the President’s reliance on his teleprompter but just aren’t willing to say it when the cameras are rolling. 

Read the rest here:
Gloria Borger Bashes Obama’s Teleprompter